"There are no more superpowers, not when IEDs are easy enough to procure by anyone."
I think this is a myth, and potentially a very dangerous one.
Asymmetric warfare only works when the side with greater symmetric power holds back due to other (political) concerns. If the US used full power in a total-war unrestrained sense, IEDs would be wholly irrelevant to the outcome. That's true even in a war using"just" unrestrained conventional weapons.
The lessons from Viet Nam, Iraq, Somalia, etc. are valuable for both sides in situations where there is no political will for unrestrained power, but don't make the mistake of believing that unrestrained power is forever off the table.
To me, at least, it seems like making that mistake in thought, on either side, virtually guarantees that it will some day come right back on the table, and with a vengeance.
See e.g. the second Chechnya war for a non-US example without much media coverage. The Russian army seems to have used artillery against cities, Syria/Hezbollah style.
I think this is a myth, and potentially a very dangerous one.
Asymmetric warfare only works when the side with greater symmetric power holds back due to other (political) concerns. If the US used full power in a total-war unrestrained sense, IEDs would be wholly irrelevant to the outcome. That's true even in a war using"just" unrestrained conventional weapons.
The lessons from Viet Nam, Iraq, Somalia, etc. are valuable for both sides in situations where there is no political will for unrestrained power, but don't make the mistake of believing that unrestrained power is forever off the table.
To me, at least, it seems like making that mistake in thought, on either side, virtually guarantees that it will some day come right back on the table, and with a vengeance.